Lads Mags In Black Bags!

No need. I was in a gay bar with my step brother. I couldn't resist when they approached us to talk live on radio. I have to say some friends were listening at home and were tickled when they heard it!

Khane":13jxe6l3 said:

Whose talking about stalking?

Click to expand...

Didn't you say something about the "beginning of most relationships"?

Unless it really isn't unrequited lust, I'm not sure I'm getting the connection between what you said, the subject of lads mags, and the rejection of what I said.

Personally I'm a bit puzzled by T3 and Stuff. Surely they must understand their demographic, but personally I like to compartmentalise a bit. I mean it's embarrassing enough buying a mag for nerds, need I be further stigmatised as a mouth breather?

Yes, I get it, really - geek chic, it's this years black, but all the same, I kinda see a bit of lines blurring so I can understand why some would object. Truth be told, I'm not sure I get it, though, sticking pics of near naked women on the cover of a mag then why not cut to the chase and just buy Razzle, or Playboy for the articles...

What they should really be taken to task for is false advertising, the bastards. And as for respect for women, didn't we all learn something about that, in that episode of The Office where Finchy mocks up a picture of Brent's head on a porn star's body? Surely the writing of Merchant and Gervais transcends comedy and is tantamount to parable?

Was that too much? Wasn't sure whether I got away with it, but I think I'll just about manage to smoke it past the wrong guys.

Neil":2qk13tqn said:

Khane":2qk13tqn said:

Whose talking about stalking?

Click to expand...

Didn't you say something about the "beginning of most relationships"?

Unless it really isn't unrequited lust, I'm not sure I'm getting the connection between what you said, the subject of lads mags, and the rejection of what I said.

Click to expand...

I realise a lot on this forum are aging in years, but surely when you went out courting the first thing you noticed about a potential partner was how physically attractive they were? Then you find out afterwards that you couldn't possibly have a relationship with them as they have literally no personality.

Much like the ladies in said magazines.

I don't recall ever having that experience.

I was always more attracted to the chaperone.

highlandsflyer":2nzm0mjk said:

technodup":2nzm0mjk said:

For me (and I imagine most although most on here wouldn't admit it) the would I/wouldn't I question comes before any other consideration. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence or lack of.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should start a thread with a poll rather than leaning on your instinct.

Click to expand...

A poll would be pointless as people who think themselves 'better' than others would lie.

I am not seeing anyone at the minute. If I see a woman my first instinct is would I/wouldn't I. After deciding on I would then I find out more. If she's an arsehole that doesn't trump the fact she looks like a page 3 'stunna'.

Anyone claiming personality is more important is fine, but they have to get past the look first, as by definition it's the first thing we see.

Mens and womens magazines are full of attractive women because people like to look at them (including those who by dint of their own lacking in appearance or personality have no chance with them). This doesn't make them rapists or violent to women, as the Bailey report concluded. Not that evidence (or lack thereof) counts when we've got a feminist witch-hunt to enjoy.

And there is far more danger to children in the food aisles than on the top shelves. And given that most little darlings have internet phones... you know the rest.

Phhhoooooar!

Margaret Cavendish is spinning in her grave.

The History Man":1h42w4iq said:

Margaret Cavendish is spinning in her grave.

Click to expand...

She'll need some air-flow, then - otherwise, that place is gonna be hotter than hell...